Dorsch S1, King L2, Weeks K3, Bruce J4, Polman E5
1Australian Catholic University, Physiotherapy, Sydney, Australia, 2Bankstown Hospital, Physiotherapy, Sydney, Australia, 3Canberra Hospital and Health Services, Physiotherapy, Canberra, Australia, 4Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia, 5Bankstown Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Background: There is clear evidence that people's functional outcomes from rehabilitation are related to the amount of exercise that they complete. However, observational studies show that most people in inpatient rehabilitation spend the majority of their day inactive. Despite an overwhelming need to increase the amount of exercise that people in inpatient rehabilitation complete, observational studies reveal that most exercise is delivered as one to one with a therapist. An alternative to this is semi-supervised exercise, which is; exercise in a group, exercise with family or independent exercise within the supervised area of the gym. This has the advantage of allowing people in rehabilitation to spend many hours of the day in the gym area and complete large amounts of exercise in an environment where they can have therapist's assistance and supervision when required but their exercise opportunities are not restricted to short one to one sessions of therapy.
Purpose:
1) To determine if semi-supervised exercise can be used to increase exercise opportunities in rehabilitation and whether this can be done safely. 2) To determine what proportion of their exercise people in inpatient rehabilitation can complete as semi-supervised exercise.
Methods: Two observational studies were conducted:
Study 1) periodic behaviour mapping of the gym used by rehabilitation inpatients was undertaken. A researcher observed the gym four times a day, three days a week over ten weeks. Data recorded included the numbers of; patients, therapists and family members in the gym, patients exercising or resting, patients exercising with therapists and family and patients exercising independently. Data was collected from the Incident Information System to quantify the incidence of adverse events.
Study 2) An audit of the practice records of of 25 people participating in inpatient rehabilitation was undertaken. On the practice records all lower limb exercise repetitions completed in the gym area were recorded and classified as semi-supervised or one-to-one exercise.
Results:
Study 1) The rehabilitation gym was observed on 113 occasions resulting in 1319 patient observations. An average of 12 patients were in the gym, range 2 to 22. Exercises were being done with family assistance in 15% of exercise observations and with no assistance in 26%, resulting in semi-supervised practice accounting for 41% of exercise observations There were no adverse safety events in the gym, despite.
Study 2) The participants completed a mean of 744 (SD 530) lower limb exercise repetitions each day. The participants completed a mean of 573 (SD 505) semi-supervised exercise repetitions. The proportion of semi-supervised exercise was 67% (SD 24%) with a range of 0 to 100%.
Conclusion(s): In the rehabilitation gym, semi-supervised exercise opportunities can be provided without compromising patient safety. Furthermore, rehabilitation inpatients can complete the majority of their exercise as semi-supervised rather than one to one with a therapist.
Implications: Therapists should provide opportunities for people in inpatient rehabilitation to spend many hours of the day in the gym area, using semi-supervised exercise as the main mode of service delivery.
Keywords: Rehabilitation, stroke, aged care
Funding acknowledgements: nil
Purpose:
1) To determine if semi-supervised exercise can be used to increase exercise opportunities in rehabilitation and whether this can be done safely. 2) To determine what proportion of their exercise people in inpatient rehabilitation can complete as semi-supervised exercise.
Methods: Two observational studies were conducted:
Study 1) periodic behaviour mapping of the gym used by rehabilitation inpatients was undertaken. A researcher observed the gym four times a day, three days a week over ten weeks. Data recorded included the numbers of; patients, therapists and family members in the gym, patients exercising or resting, patients exercising with therapists and family and patients exercising independently. Data was collected from the Incident Information System to quantify the incidence of adverse events.
Study 2) An audit of the practice records of of 25 people participating in inpatient rehabilitation was undertaken. On the practice records all lower limb exercise repetitions completed in the gym area were recorded and classified as semi-supervised or one-to-one exercise.
Results:
Study 1) The rehabilitation gym was observed on 113 occasions resulting in 1319 patient observations. An average of 12 patients were in the gym, range 2 to 22. Exercises were being done with family assistance in 15% of exercise observations and with no assistance in 26%, resulting in semi-supervised practice accounting for 41% of exercise observations There were no adverse safety events in the gym, despite.
Study 2) The participants completed a mean of 744 (SD 530) lower limb exercise repetitions each day. The participants completed a mean of 573 (SD 505) semi-supervised exercise repetitions. The proportion of semi-supervised exercise was 67% (SD 24%) with a range of 0 to 100%.
Conclusion(s): In the rehabilitation gym, semi-supervised exercise opportunities can be provided without compromising patient safety. Furthermore, rehabilitation inpatients can complete the majority of their exercise as semi-supervised rather than one to one with a therapist.
Implications: Therapists should provide opportunities for people in inpatient rehabilitation to spend many hours of the day in the gym area, using semi-supervised exercise as the main mode of service delivery.
Keywords: Rehabilitation, stroke, aged care
Funding acknowledgements: nil
Topic: Neurology; Older people; Orthopaedics
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Liverpool Hospital
Ethics committee: Sydney South West Local Health District Human Ethics committee
Ethics number: LNR/16/LPOOL/531
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
